> 18/04/2018 10:56, Bruce Richardson: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden: > > > > On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > >> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and > > > > >> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion. > > > > > > > > > > I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself. > > > > > When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive. > > > > > Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style? > > > > > > > > > I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto > > > > style rather than go your own way. > > > > > > But our way is better! :) > > > And it has been decided in the Technical Board. > > > > > > > As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own > > checkpatch-like script for performing addition DPDK-specific > > code-checks *after* Linux checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check > > patch checks as much as possible, but have other checks too. > > +1 to call more scripts in checkpatches.sh. > We need to find the right language to do code checks. > Coccinelle looks to be a good candidate for some checks. > > > For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with > > "%s") and suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own > > extension script, we could put our own SPDX format check there too. > > > > Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this? > > I am not volunteer to start the work but I would be glad to contribute later. > > Any motivated volunteer? > [Hemant] yes, we need volunteer 😊
In DPDK we have following requirements 1. Check the SPDX tag on the files. 2. Validate the valid license SPDX tag. (BSD-3 and Dual for all except kernel folder). Regards, Hemant
